Apologetics Conversation

This is just as an illustration of the types of conversations we can start. I wanted to post one, a typical one that while on-line or at dinner, we can be aware of a few facts, a few interesting things, stuff to get the conversation going, and ask questions of another to make them think. You will know quickly if the participant is receptive to hearing more about the good news of Christ and the bible, or if they reject it. But the point here is, we do not have to beat people over the head with the bible, or delve in to deep and serious theology at every turn; but fun simple and happy conversations can plant seeds as well. And is it not great to show the joy that comes with not only hope, but with reason, and truth as well. This started by me simply stating what books I was reading. “Why read that?” was the response, to which I am able to reply, “it is quite interesting.
It would lead you on a merry chase towards inevitable conclusions!” Dramatic I know, but true none the less. So the person I was speaking with said, “ok, shoot.”

Cooper:   do you know what a pterosaur is?

#:  Lol no
Dinosaur?

C:  yes, a flying one
featherless, and huge
‘like 50 foot wingspan
we find them in the fossil record.
so, they existed, correct?

#:  Sure

C:  buried by mud and water.
now… physics tells us that this animal could not have flown in today’s atmosphere
the air pressure we experience now wouldn’t have allowed it
but this was not a flightless bird.

#:  Ok

C:  so what can we conclude?

#:  The atmosphere changed.

C:  yes!
that at some time in the past the air pressure was more dense
another example is the size of a braceosaurus’s nostril
it is the size of a horse’s, and with an 80 ft body, and long neck, there is no way, without more air pressure, that oxygen would have sustained such an animal.

#:  Ok well that’s cool. So same thing then

C:  now… we can observe the deterioration of the earth’s magnetism.

#:  Idk…I think there’s a lot of magnetism still😉lol

C:  Yes, enough left for life, but not enough to allow for millions and millions of years.

[The magnetic field] lost 10% of its magnetism in the last 150 years; Archaeological measurements show that the field was 40% stronger in 1000AD; International Geomagnetic Reference Field show a net energy loss of 1.4% in just three decades (1970–2000)
Magnetic field’s energy has halved every 1,465 years.

now, this one scientist grew piranhas in a tank that was magnetized.
know what happened?

#:  No…what?!

C:  they grew to 4 x the normal size of pirannahs.

#:  Oooohhhh

C:  okay, 3 factor, ready?

#:  Hit me

C:  we know from all the oil in the ground
that the amount of trees pre-flood was huge
huge amounts of what we call biomass
what do trees produce?

#:  Oxygen

C:  yatzee!
so, in a pre-flood world, we have
high air pressure, more oxygen, and higher magnetism
this creates a perfect living environment for carbon based life forms.

#:  Dang… hate we missed that! lol

C:  but now, when the veracity of the scriptures come in to question…
men who lived to be 100’s of years old
reptiles that grew to enormous lengths and size
we can now justify this with observable science

#:  Boom!

 

Again, this is just a small conversation, to get others thinking, to start to make others realize that the word is full of truth. In this case, the other person was already a believer, so this would be in order to build faith, not necessarily to prove anything. But confidence in God’s word is a great thing when faced with the hopelessness of man’s worldview. After someone believes, there should be discipleship too. It is such a blessing to know that we can hang our faith on the truth of God’s word.

 

For great reading, please check out my book at amazon.com. 

Infighting: Young vs Old Earth

Subject Article: Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth. 

One of my favorite apologists is Frank Turek. I have really grown to love and respect him, and his methods. He is intelligent, articulate, and charismatic, and it is clear he loves the Lord, and does so with great courage. Frank has written a couple books that I have read and enjoyed, and would highly recommend.

Stealing from God, and Not Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

They are both thought provoking and amazing, and the concepts are very helpful.

Frank also runs www.crossexamined.org, a terrific apologist site. It seems as though everyone involved with this ministry is quite brilliant, and quite talented, and it is with trepidation that I butt heads with them on any issue, simply because I am quite outmatched, both intellectually, and regarding resources.

That being said, I have watched Frank’s responses to the young earth creation theory  very closely during his question and answer sessions, and have just recently read  Jonathan McLatchie’s article again from 2011, Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth.  Based on these, I continue to find myself at odds with their conclusions. I do however agree that though this issue should continue to be examined and explored, it should not cause division among Christians. 

I say this humbly, and from experience, because due to my passion for the subject, I have certainly allowed what I believe is the truth of God’s word to cause rifts, heated debate, and even anger between me and other christians. The intentions of my interactions are always out of love, and out of a desire to illustrate the amazing truths we can find in the word, thereby teaching how trustworthy the word of God is. How we are completely justified in our faith as Christians. But of course, the very human, and very fleshy part of me will often surface, and cause me to have less grace than I should, usually to the detriment of the conversation, and I am afraid, also to the detriment of people’s general view of me as a person and a christian. This is something I continue to try and work on in my own life.

I also acknowledge McLatchie’s conclusion in the subject article that the bible does indeed allow for a more literal interpretation for the Genesis days, though he does go on to say it doesn’t demand it. I have addressed this issue several times and in several ways. For more of what I have written, please click here:

“Why do we care?”

“Satan’s Fall”

“Total Opposite”

I have heard Frank state in his answer sessions that he does not believe in macro-evolution, based on evidence, and has therefore stipulated in his answer sessions that man was created in his present form (barring micro-evolutionary changes, or natural selection over time). I agree.

Yet, in another answer session, he will go on to stipulate that he believes based on the laws of physics and the Big Bang’s apparent reality (I disagree, but again, am not a scientist), the universe is/could-be very old.

If we examine the article in question, McLatchie further complicates matters by stating the myth that it could have been a local flood in Noah’s day, which is not only refuted by a simple reading of the biblical text, but also a simple surveying of the millions of drown fossils buried all over the earth among other obvious geological evidences. Genesis 7 assures us “all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” Being fans of science, I would challenge any apologist

2016-6-18-bill-j
pic from answersingenesis.org

 to explain how water rose 15 feet above all the highest hills, and somehow remained “local”. 2 Peter 3:5-6 continues to support the global event; “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.” We can see from the many examples of great sea fossils buried upon the dry land of every continent that this was so. Andrew Snelling has done great work examining this.images (1).jpg

In regards to the days of Genesis 1, these have been addressed by YEC time and time again. But I would at least quickly point out that the day itself is literally defined in the verse as “there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.” Since it is the first one, God goes ahead and describes it for us, a daylight portion and a nighttime portion seem to make up a day. Literally defined. I would also ask, how many “first days” are there?

We are (or should be) familiar with day-age and gap theory, but specifically the gap theory seems to be the one Frank refers to in his answers, though he does so quite tactfully (and I don’t want to presume to speak for him), as he mentions the space potentially between verse one and two of Genesis. For reference, Thomas Chalmers invented the Gap Theory in 1814, saying that great time could exist in the beginning verses. He was a Scottish minister, professor of theology, political economist, and a leader of the Church of Scotland and of the Free Church of Scotland. He has been called “Scotland’s greatest nineteenth-century churchman”. Unfortunately, he was also reacting to the pressure of man’s idea of uniformitarian theory, and the “great chain of being” theory, which are the precursors of evolutionary thinking.

McLatchie says in his  article, that “… as a scientist, the arguments for an ancient earth seem to be very compelling (needless to say, when it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is a very different story).” So it would appear that both he and Frank are convinced the earth is quite old, yet are also both convinced that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “on its heels right now,” as Mr. Turek had stated. This would mean, unless I am misunderstanding, that both of these  men believe that it is possible, if not probable, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that the earth is potentially 4 billion years old, and that mankind was created less than 100,000  years ago (Frank’s date) in his present form.

This would mean that man, whom God made in His image, to subdue the earth, and rule it, has lived here 0.00073% of the time the universe has existed, and during only .0022% of the earth’s history. This would also mean that Jesus lied when He said God made them male and female in the beginning, being off by 99.9988%. So for reasons unknown, time would have been invented unnecessarily, for no one, to run on for ages upon ages without anyone but God to observe it’s passing, which would beg the question, why invent it?

It would further require a theory, since Darwinian molecules-to-man is not stipulated by either apologist, about when the rest of the animals were created. If it was long before man to account for an ancient fossil record, then we are now moving away from a Gap Theory, and trying to mold it in to a day-age theory, where each day is theoretically millions or billions of years. This throws day six into great confusion.

Confusion also arises when  the article addresses the “planting of the garden” taking longer than a day. If someone stipulates that God created light, and stars, and the sun from nothing, and then tries to convince me that planting a garden would take this person great time, it doesn’t sit right with me logically. In fact, Frank himself states; “The greatest miracle in the Bible is recorded in the first verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. If that miracle is true, then every miracle in the Bible is at least possible.” I would emphatically agree.

Another factor addressed by McLatchie is the death before sin problem. He states that the first few verses do not definitively say there was no death prior. However, our bible does say: “The wages of sin is death” – Rom 6:23

and

Rom 5: 12 ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one…”

If one were to make the case that animals can’t sin, and therefore their deaths for millions of years are irrelevant, you still have to deal with the thorns, cancers, tumors, and various curse-caused issues of the fossil record, a written punishment of Genesis following the fall.

McLatchie tries to use some assumptions about carnivores causing animal deaths here, and goes so far as to mention the lion’s obvious “violence” – the very animal the bible uses to prove that when the curse is lifted, shall be so gentle, a child can lead them:

Isaiah 11:6 – “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

Since undoing the curse that took place is the theme and scope of the bible entire -Revelations 22:3, And there shall be no more curse –  I feel it is safe to assume the lion could easily be imagined as non-violent in the garden of Eden, since we have a promise it will be so again in the future.

So much internal evidence is thrown askew when the bible is forced to fit man’s theories (e.g. the theory of molecules to man evolution, or cosmic evolution). I would point out that in doing so, we are, like our christian brother Mr. Chalmers did, bending to the will of those who campaign furiously against God, and the redeeming power of Jesus Christ.

In the words of Luther, and despite my shortcomings, “I can do no other.” I will have to continue to support YEC, as I feel it is backed by scripture, and is quite readily corroborated by observable science. But I will also agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Turek that the Lord will not be caring about what we believe the age of the earth is when we arrive to meet him in heaven, but will instead be examining our hearts regarding Jesus instead. It is paramount. My fear though, is that with the bible’s foundation thrown into a confusing obscurity, will it damage the faith of others? I fear it already has.

All this aside, I agree with Mr. Frank Turek and his team of apologists on nearly everything else, and will continue to look to them as a wonderful resource for me, my family, and my church, and recommend them to anyone who finds this article. Since I am so small, and he is out there crushing it, it is unlikely that he or Mr. McLatchie will ever come across this small little blog page. But if that ever happens, I look forward to getting absolutely toasted by a scientist and a doctor. But in closing I will say that it is a blessing to have the education, and the printed bible in my language at all, that would even allow Mr. Turek and I to form opposite opinions on some theology points. There was a time when the word was kept from being studied by all but the clergy,  and someone like me would not have had the privilege to ever read it in my own language, much less the freedom to disagree with my superiors. For this I am grateful. As Tyndale said, “…if God spare my life, I will make a boy that driveth the plough know more of the Scripture than thou dost.” With that purpose having been achieved, we all now have the blessing of studying these mysteries for ourselves, and determining our own salvation… as well we should… with fear and trembling.

 

Don’t need God, Just Add Time…

One of the arguments apologists make is called the teleological argument, or simply stated, the argument from design. The old adage goes, if I were to come upon a pocket watch laying on a  beach,  I would quickly observe the dials, the polished metal, the small bits of assembly required to make it run. It would be clear to me that it had a designer. In much the same way, we can observe the infinitely more complex information, and organization of nature and confidently say it has a designer as well. DNA language, irreducible complexity, biodiversity. These are things we instinctively realize are not accidental, though some may hope them to be. As Romans 1:20 says,

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

rustic_wood_look_planks_large_clock-r7e0ef10db0d34208b51758b252490b09_fup13_8byvr_324But since Sir Charles Lyell’s book, the Principles of Geology, where he imagined the geologic column, and perpetuated the idea that the world was much older than the bible chronology reported, we have been adding great amounts of time to the theory of molecules-to-man evolution. Sir Charles Lyell who wished to “save the sciences from Moses”, and was a contemporary and major influence on Darwin,  proposed that the world was at least 35,000 years old after his trip to Niagara Falls in 1841.

The story goes that upon his visit, with the firm desire to “prove” the world was older than the bible said, he visited the falls to test the erosion rate. Rather than wait and measure, he asked the locals their opinion on how quickly the falls eroded per year. A collection of reports from locals that had lived near the falls for years stated that the erosion rate was probably about 3 feet per year. Measuring back to Lake Ontario at this rate only gave him a date of around 12,000-15,000 years. Lyell, needing the dates to be much older, assumed this was an exaggeration, and when he ended up back in England to write down his “research”, he felt the more likely rate of erosion was 1 foot per year. The seven miles from its beginning therefore allowed him to assume it had taken the falls 35,000 years to reach its present position.

As it turns out, the actual median erosion rate of the falls is 5 feet per year, which by that measure would have brought the date to only about 9000 years old, or even younger when you figure the beginnings of that erosion were caused by the fast moving drainage of Noah’s flood. But Lyell had a uniformitarian view to prop up, and it was his hatred of the bible that motivated it. Incidentally, by the end of his career, Lyell presumed the beginning of life was 200 million years.

This idea of long time didn’t start with Lyell, though he was the one that popularized it. James Hutton, who was died the year Lyell was born, suggested a long time frame and wrote that the present was the key to the past, which of course led to uniformitarian viewpoints. Before him was Comte de Buffon, 1707-1788, who first proposed broad scale mutability of species. In Epoques de la Nature, he suggested the Earth was torn from the sun 75,000 years ago.

As we know now, the assumed time for the age of the earth is around 4.5 billion years. The more fossils that were found, and the slower it seemed evolution took place, so slow in fact that evidence for it was non-existent, the dates of life’s beginning moved from Lyell’s 35,000 years to 2.1 billion years. This is the time frame that evolutionists believe is necessary to evolve humans from a one celled organism. So slow in fact, that evidence for it is completely un-observable. Sounds a lot like faith, doesn’t it?

Dr. George Wald, a Professor of Biology at Harvard University, and Nobel Laureate wrote “The origin of life”, and article in Scientific American, August 1954. In it he states, “However improbable we regard this event [origin of life], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at-least-once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.” He goes on to say, “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”

Sound like faith?

You see, time itself is the miracle worker in evolutionary theory, not God. Time can do the impossible. Time fixes all the issues, the lack of evidence, the problem of entropy. Time, with no purpose, intelligence, or reason, has somehow created all we see, and done so opposite of the laws we observe today. If you add enough of it, that shouldn’t matter, as long as we have replaced faith in God with faith in something else.

Why? I will let Dr. Richard Charles Lewontin, from Columbia University, an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator answer that question:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Or perhaps Nagel, Thomas could give you extra insight as to why:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.” – The Last Word, pp. 130–131, Oxford University Press, 1997. Dr Nagel (1937– ) is Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University.

So the premise maintained by the goo-to-you believers is that given enough time, disorder, without any intelligence guiding it, will become order, opposite the Laws of Thermodynamics, Motion, etc. The opposite of entropy.

To conclude, I will give you the example Dr. Ron Carlson gave during one of his lectures. He says, go up in a plane to 5000 ft above the Space Center Complex, take some neatly stacked index cards and toss them out. You must do this over and over until they land in the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex parking lot so that they spell out “Welcome to the Kennedy Space Center”. (This simple phrase of only 30 letters should be easy, as compared with the perfectly ordered 3 billion letters of our genetic code).

We observe at 5000 ft that these cards are not organizing, but instead ending up all over the place. So in order to produce more of a chance to organize in a way that makes sense, we will now follow the theory of evolution’s assertion and give these cards MORE TIME.

We will now take the plane up to 25,000 ft, so they have more time to fall, take our neatly stacked cards, and toss them out.  With all this extra time to fall, we must conclude that eventually they will organize into a proper sentence, or word, or even one letter. We have added the magic of time like evolutionists!

But wait –  the cards are now spreading out in an even more disorganized radius of chaos, some landing even 10’s of miles from where the plane dropped them!

How then, my friends, do we explain the beauty and exactitude of nature with this process? The answer is, we cannot. It is impossible.

I submit to you that this scientific experiment will provide us with more truth about our reality than any of the postulating, question-begging, circular reasoning, and assumption of our evolutionist friends, who like Dr. Nagel, hopes there is no God.

 

 

 

Law of Non-Contradiction

The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. The principle was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Russell and Whitehead in Principia Mathematica. This is an important part of apologetics, as many people will state, “that is true for you, but not true for me”.
If there is an absolute truth, it behooves us to seek it, and to know it. As an example, in Christianity, we state that Christ died according to the scriptures, and was raised from the dead on the third day according to the scriptures. In Islam, they state that Christ never died on the cross.
(Similarly we have a huge contradiction regarding the deity of Christ (God vs god)).
One can plainly see that these two statements cannot both be true simultaneously. Yet, from a great many who are offended by the gospel message, in a New Age world of anything goes, they will state that Islam is true for them, Buddhism is true for them, and Christianity is true for you, and who are you to say otherwise? But in this case, it is impossible for truth to be relative. Either one is true or the other is. Ignoring that will not make it go away.
In a similar instance a couple years ago, Oprah indicated that there are many names that one might give to that which she calls “God”, including “energy,” “consciousness” and “life”; at the same time she famously stated that Jesus Christ was merely a symbol, and that clinging to the “Old Rugged Cross” was a “mistake”. These beliefs  are in stark contrast to the statements of God’s word,  and have very different consequences than those referred to in scripture, if one applies them to a world view. Therefore the two worldviews are incompatible. Either the bible is lying to you, or Oprah is wrong. There is no logical third option.
In this attempt to be accepting to others, we deny that all these ideas have very contrasting beliefs. One simply cannot believe that every viewpoint is possible and remain honest. But it can become much easier to base belief on feelings as opposed to truth, because of the consequence (social pressure, fear of losing friends). What we must ask is this: is it truly loving to not seek truth in order to protect feelings? If salvation is a reality, and there is one way to attain it, is it kind to not share it for fear of retribution?
C.S Lewis says, “…it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion. God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.”
He offers this advise:
“The great difficulty is to get modern audiences to realize that you are preaching Christianity solely and simply because you happen to think it true; they always suppose you are preaching it because you like it or think it good for society or something of that sort. Now a clearly maintained distinction between what the Faith actually says and what you would like it to have said or what you understand or what you personally find helpful or think probable, forces your audience to realize that you are tied to your data just as the scientist is tied by the results of the experiments; that you are not just saying what you like. This immediately helps them realize that what is being discussed is a question about objective fact — not gas about ideals and points of view.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I continue to work on discipling others and spreading the good news of Christ as best I can, and in love as I am able, but with full knowledge that a) I am utterly imperfect, and b) that God and His truth are utterly perfect. We should all be grateful the morality and truth of God’s word are not malleable. What a terrible thought! But the consequence of a perfect and immovable God is that He is inexorably a God of order, and reason, not a God of confusion, and His nature and the truth of His ways and plans are fixed, all above our wishes and ways.
Again, C.S. Lewis states: “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.”
The law of non-contradiction is an ugly truth to wrestle with. It shouldn’t be, as it is a plainly obvious law. I am all for debating which perceived truth is correct, and making a decision based the data at hand. But when someone emphatically states there are many truths, that all truth is subjective, and relative, what progress can be made? This is an emotional standing, upon which one feels that he or she is safe. Safe from offending friends, offending God, and incurring consequence. It is interesting to note that the most heated contestations with someone who thinks all world views are acceptable is when you assert that truth is not subjective, but absolute. “That is your truth, not my truth!” It is deemed an imposing of one’s will upon another, rather than a stating of natural, created order. We are at that point asking a person to accept a reality based on objective truth, and objective morality, contrary to what they wish to perceive. This can be a scary and emotional transition.
Boiled down, we are talking about introducing the reality of Law into the worldview of society. This is anathema to naturalism, atheism, and New Ageism. We know we are not saved by the law, but by grace. However, Romans 7:7 says, “What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.””
This is compounded by, James 2:10  “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”
This is the introduction of consequence to a worldview, which convicts the heart, and forces one to try and reject the reality of God, or instead to humble themselves before Him.
In relative truth’s simplest form of defeat –  saying truth is not absolute is itself an absolute statement. It is self-defeating.
In conclusion, based on the bible, Christians are admittedly narrow-minded in this truth – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” –  John 14:6
_____________________________
This is the case with Creation vs evolution debate as well, two contradictory world views which once logically considered, cannot be simultaneously believed (for more on that click here).

Our Amazing Moon

In studying Picture1and familiarizing myself with more “Goldilocks” factors, or factors necessary for life to exist on this planet, I am reminded of some basics, considerations I was amazed and entertained by in my youth, but have since forgotten or dismissed. I remember leafing through science books about oceans, and volcanoes, and animals, endlessly looking at pictures and enjoying all the wonders of nature. One of my favorite science books was the one on our solar system; our sun, our nine planets (Pluto wasn’t under the scrutiny it faces these days), and our amazing moon.

Genesis 1:14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

There are so many studies we could do on Genesis chapter 1, but one interesting thing to note is that many critics of the bible levy a charge against it that it simply borrowed creation accounts from other ancient cultures, such as Babylonian. I recommend studying that charge, as it is pretty easy to debunk. But note that those other stories from other peoples use terms for the sun and moon.

Babylon names them Shamash (sun) and Sin (moon). If we go farther back, to the Sumerians, their references to the moon-god are Sin, and Nanna. The sun was Utu, and Venus was Iananna, and since these were moon worshipping cultures, the writings say that these two objects were the children of our moon.

Clearly these ideas could not have given rise to our Genesis account, and any attempt to accuse such can be dismissed with a simple reading of the text. But note that at this point in history, these objects in our sky had already been named. It is intriguing to me that in our account, it simply states, “a greater light” (maor gadol) and “a lesser light” (maor qaton). It states they are there, made, and simply describes them. Genesis does not name either the sun, or the moon, because when that portion of Genesis was written, they had not yet been given names!

The names of these celestial bodies were given long after, by the Sumerians post-flood. The bible does not use names for them until Genesis 15 -Shemesh, the Babylonian name- and Genesis 37 – Yareah, a Canaanite name. This is great literary evidence that the first chapter of Genesis was written long before the myths of pagan cultures.

Our moon is a compass, a clock, a calendar, and a nightlight. Its distance and size is designed perfectly to provide a gravity that interacts with Earth’s, and regulates her tilt. It also keeps our oceans healthy, and regulates biorhythms. It is easy to understand how such a wonderful creation could be misunderstood and idolized by primitive peoples. But as Romans 1:25 tells us, mankind still falls into this trap today:

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the created things more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

The moon is 238,900 miles from Earth, a particular distance that allows it, on its particular Picture2orbit to do something extraordinary, create eclipses. I say particular because typically satellites orbit around their planet’s equator. Since our earth is tilted at approximately 23.4 degrees, this would send the moon up and down rather than along the same plane as the sun. Instead, God had it orbit in perfect alignment with the earth’s orbit around the sun, regardless of the earth’s tilt.

It also has a particular size. The sun is 400 times larger than the moon, while the sun is exactly 400 times farther away! The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. Considering the enormity of these bodies, and trying to fathom their perfect timing, size, and placement, that allows us on earth to appreciate their splendor that much more, I would be a fool as a cosmologist to not believe in an all-powerful creator God.

Psalms 19:1
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands

Unfortunately though, that is precisely what many cosmologists are doing. The evolutionary mindset of many sciences has blinded them into thinking that despite all this perfect order, what they see is nothing more than blind chance, accidental, coincidental luck.

They cling to the dying theory of molecules-to-man evolution so faithfully that it forces the prevailing theories on the moon’s origin to be laughable. This is NASA’s theory as it stands today. This is literally what they believe, or try to believe, and condone teaching to students. This is what hoping there is no God looks like:

“The leading theory of the moon’s origin is that a Mars-sized body collided with Earth about 4.5 billion years ago. The resulting debris from both Earth and the impactor accumulated to form our natural satellite 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) away. The newly formed moon was in a molten state, but within about 100 million years, most of the global “magma ocean” had crystallized, with less-dense rocks floating upward and eventually forming the lunar crust. ” – NASA, (http://moon.nasa.gov/about.cfm)

Did you get that? A planet sized body collided with ours and formed a molten moon from the accumulating debris of an impact, in its perfect position, a perfect distance away, and didn’t destroy the earth in the process. And people laugh at my biblical beliefs!

Aside from the insurmountable ridiculousness of our leading cosmology theory, we run into another problem called lunar regression. It has been ascertained that the moon is slowly drifting away from the Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year. Now, if we consider this drift from the presupposition that the bible’s chronology is accurate, after 6000 years or so this equates to moving the moon only 250 meters. Not a big deal.

However if, like NASA is declaring, the moon was blasted out of the Earth and somehow ended up in orbit 4 billion years ago, was it drifting the whole time? If we reverse the 1.5 inch drift over a period of  only 1.5 billion years (I say only, due to the vast ages applied to evolutionary theory) we reach what scientists refer to as “Roche’s Limit”. This puts the moon only 11,500 miles from the Earth, at which point, Roche calculated that the gravity of the two bodies would rip each other apart. This does not bode well for the theory that the moon could survive being blasted off the side of our planet. It also does not bode well for the moon’s age, which is purported to be 4 billion years old. This limiting factor of 1.5 billion years continues to baffle those who hope our beautifully arranged solar system has come about by mere chance.

In addition to this Roche Limit, it was also calculated (to further complicate the scenario) that the closer the moon was to the Earth, the faster the lunar regression would be, due to the Earth’s gravitational pull and spin ‘flinging’ the moon away faster. This means that we now have to account for even more regression in the past, and two bodies that cannot be too close.

And one final consideration. If Lunar regression puts the moon insanely close to the Earth a billion years ago -95% closer! –  and somehow scientists can bypass the reality of Roche’s Limit, what would gravity do to the tides of the oceans? Would the moon’s gravity flood the earth twice a day via global catastrophic flooding in a constant, destructive, never-ending, muddy, violent, perpetual water event? We already know evolutionists don’t believe in a global flood, right? (snicker snicker). But we would somehow have to explain how life not only came about and survived in this harsh environment, but also how it continued to thrive and evolve into more and more complexity.

I am glad it is not my challenge to solve, as I comfortably rest on the truth of God’s word. I can look up at the night sky, and feel blessed to look upon the heavens, and our amazing moon, and know that despite my sin, He loved me anyways.

Romans 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Goodnight Moon.

 

Satan’s Fall

Ezekiel 28 teaches us about the fall of Satan. When rebuking the King of Tyre, the chapter takes an aside to compare this king with Satan in the Garden of Eden.  Let’s look at the text:

Ezekiel 28: 12“You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
14 “You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created,
Till iniquity was found in you.
16 “By the abundance of your trading
You became filled with violence within,
And you sinned;
Therefore I cast you as a profane thing
Out of the mountain of God;
And I destroyed you, O covering cherub,
From the midst of the fiery stones.
17 “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty;
You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor;
I cast you to the ground,
I laid you before kings,
That they might gaze at you.
18 “You defiled your sanctuaries
By the multitude of your iniquities,
By the iniquity of your trading;
Therefore I brought fire from your midst;
It devoured you,
And I turned you to ashes upon the earth
In the sight of all who saw you.
19 All who knew you among the peoples are astonished at you;
You have become a horror,
And shall be no more forever.”’”

Tyre was known for building wealth by swindling those nearby. Ancient writers referred to Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. It was a center for idolatry and sexual immorality. The king is accused of greed and pride, and receives some of the strongest condemnations in the bible. But these descriptions surpass a king’s very human station as ruler. For example, could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God?” This is a dual prophecy, not only about the fall of Tyre, but also the inevitable fall of Satan. Some suggest that it is possible the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan. But there is no way to know for sure. What we do know is God uses this condemnation of Tyre to describe Satan’s fall to us.

We also know that Eden is not only referred to in Genesis, but also in Isaiah, in Joel, as well as in Ezekiel. Furthermore, Christ refers to Man and Woman since the beginning in Mark 10:6, and Matthew 19:4, and sites Genesis 25 times – e.g. “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

In addition to all this, we know that Genesis records man’s first sin, and the fall, or curse, that is the result. This leads to expulsion from paradise, the curse of a fallen world, and death. We can familiarize ourselves with this truth from Paul’s words to the Romans in chapter 5:

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

So what can we conclude about Satan in the garden from these verses in the bible?

  1. Satan was created –  from the day you were created
  2. He was perfect (sinless) from that day of creation – You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created
  3. We know that on the seventh day, God said His creation was good. Since death was the result of the curse described in Romans, revelations etc, we know death had not entered into the world yet. This means Satan was good for a time between the seventh day and the fall.
  4. We know Satan was an Angel –  the anointed cherub
  5. We know Angels were shouted for joy when the land was created, which most likely refers to day three when dry land appears –  Job38:4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
  6. We know that Angels are ministering spirits for people, which makes there creation and use symbiotic with human beings – Hebrews 1:14 – Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
  7. We know that Satan was perfect ‘until iniquity was found in him, and this resulted in him being cast out – Till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God.
  8. We know that it was this was caused by his beauty and pride – Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor
  9. And we know that this pride is the tool he used to entice mankind to fall – “Ye can be as gods”

Considering these texts from the bible, it is clear to me that Satan fell after creation while in the Garden with Adam and Eve. The result of this interaction is the curse of thorns, and sweat of the brow, and struggles, and death that we still feel to this day, but that will be lifted when Christ returns – [Revelations 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.
Revelations 22:3 And there shall be no more curse]

The fall of Satan, and of man, is crucial to understanding the redemptive work of Christ, as well as our understanding of a future heaven and future earth that has no pain, no curse, and no death.  If we look at these verses within the creation model, they all fit nicely together, and one can see the beautiful mosaic of life created, the fall, and the redemptive work of love to save us from it. If we, on the other hand, try to superimpose man’s theories of millions of years upon the words of the bible, we are forced to not only dismiss Genesis, but mounds of supporting verses, which must be thrown into obscurity, thus rendering much of the proven history of the Old Testament nothing more than fable, and folklore. We would have to conclude that the majority of all death, and troubles, and cursed ground we observe in the fossil record literally caused mankind, and was the method of his creation, rather than the result of sin. That the very curse described in our bible, and the reason for our savior, is merely the natural processes that God used to bring about all life. If this is the case, what exactly is Jesus Christ accomplishing on the cross? Is he merely stopping evolution? Declaring that those 4 billion years were enough?  If we do this, the authority of the text folds like a house of cards.

Romans 3:4 says, yea, let God be true, but every man a liar. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Let us as Christians, imperfect though we may be, continue to strive towards looking at the world through the truth of God’s words, not man’s, and allow ourselves the possibility that man has denied truth in order to absolve his own guilt before a great creator God. Historically speaking, this is what we would expect.

 

Does Teaching Evolution Cause Racism?

IMG_9947Want a clear understanding of why there is racism? We have been teaching it for 150 years through evolution. Of course it has always existed between tribes, but without Judeo-Christian values in play in a society, however imperfectly it may be implemented by men, there is much more room for the elevation of man. We have taught this mindset to generations of kids. Our teachers taught it as science, and evolutionary theory has continued to prove itself not only as scientifically ridiculous, but also as the most insidious and destructive thought system ever devised. Think I am wrong? Overstating? Consider this then:

Darwin wrote Origin of the species, regarding animals mostly, with only the insinuation that it would apply to mankind near the end. And when he felt the premise took hold of his scientific contemporaries enough, he then released The Decent of Man in 1871. In it, Darwin said this:
“At some future period… the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider… even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a contemporary of Charles Darwin and an ardent evolutionist, popularized in Germany his concept of the superman, and then the master race.

Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog and evolution Salesman, coined the term agnostic, and preached evolution to crowds the size of which are reserved for rock stars today. He stated: “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.”

Darwin called him, ‘My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel—i.e. the devil’s Gospel.’

This led to other believers in evolution to conclude man was merely an evolved animal, and the logical conclusion to this, especially when brought to its logical and inexorable end, is that some men had evolved farther than others. This was further perpetuated by those that followed such as Ernst Haeckel, GERMAN EMBRYOLOGIST and fraud, born Feb. 16, 1834—died Aug. 9, 1919. He perpetuated the fish embryo drawings, and idea which is still being recycled today, as well as a missing link which he called Pithecanthropus alalus (speechless apeman) and even had an artist, Gabriel Max, draw the imagined creature, although there was not a scrap of evidence to support a single detail in the drawings. Being a German, and a university scientist, as well as an evolutionist, he was a major influence on Hitler. Haeckel stated, “At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes.”

This evolutionary mindset of course led Hitler to attempt his justification of racial supremacy. In Mein Kampf, Hitler said this: “If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”

Obviously this adopted fervor can be understood as the result of taking evolutionary theory too far. Add a little power, a little patriotism, and a whole lot of violence and you have the death of 20 million people, among other horrible atrocities. It should be pointed out that these atrocities are only wrong because there is a moral and objective absolute good, set forth by God. Without it, anything that would conceivably be believed to help future generations, Hitler included, cannot technically be considered evil, or immoral. In the instance of evolution creating men by chance, the “right” side is merely the side who wins, or has the bigger stick.

Evolution was introduced to American school systems in the early 1960’s, but Darwin’s poisonous and unscientific ideas didn’t wait that long to permeate society’s education system.We taught a generation of kids in high school and college from this text book in the 1920’s – George William Hunter’s A Civic Biology.
“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”
We continue to teach Darwinian evolution, either as neo-Darwinism or Lamarckism, and have since by a series of if-then assumptions, extrapolated out the idea that man evolved from non-humans, (the molecules to man theory, or goo to you theory), into an explanation for everything from chemicals, to stars, to matter itself. [For more on this read ‘The Long War Agaianst God’ by Morris, or ‘In the Minds of Men’ by Taylor].

Evolutionism is the paradigm with which we have justified racism, imperialism, and other deadly ideologies. And yes, through its perpetuation, it has molded the minds of the church to their detriment as well. But as we know, man poisons God’s word, God does not poison man’s. So what does God say in His word about it?

Genesis 8:16-19: Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee. Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him: Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.

It says after the flood 4500 years ago, we all came from the same 8 people, which means we are all related. This concurs with genetics, population growth studies, and the similarities in flood legends and architecture the world over.

Furthermore, the bible says this:

Revelations 7:9-10: After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

It simply states that we all came from the same origin. And that no one person or people group is worth more than any other. It, like science, says we are all one race, and we will stand shoulder to shoulder together in victory before the throne of our Almighty Creator. No one people group is better, for all of us fall short, and all of us are in need of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Answering critics – Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones

After more than one debate over the importance of Creation vs Evolution studies with one individual, and plumbing the depths of its veracity as a ministry, a simple comment about soft tissue and carbon 14  having been found in dinosaurs led  quickly from a cordial discussion to being accused of idol worship, being told to stop harmonizing the bible with science,  and assertion that the entire group of Christians, including many with advanced degrees the world over,  who happen to believe in the chronology presented in the Old Testament are wasting their time and resources.

Once cooler heads prevailed this question was presented, as a challenge that I accepted.

“Will you please address the issue of the misrepresentation of Mrs. Sweitzer’s data. I would like to ask you to study her findings and using google, a library, the bible, and your own research, refute those findings by backing it up with real tangible data.
Then tell me how that data or her data in any way lies in contradiction to the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator.”

It was worded well, and once asked, I felt it would be an opportunity to extrapolate on a few issues I have written about before.

Mrs. Sweitzer’s data came from this article:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

and was copied and ker-plasted as a retort to my simple acknowledgement that soft tissue and Carbon 14 had indeed been found in dinosaur bones, and this was a problem (one of many) for evolutionists who cling to the molecules to man scenario.

Firstly we must declare off hand, and as I have taught many times on line and in person, that presupposition plays a rather large role in this debate, and as the article so adeptly googled and flung was from none other than the Smithsonian, not exactly a bastion of Christian thought and intellect, we can expect absolutely nothing from them but strong religious adherence to Darwinism, and the beating drum of millions of years. I have searched its archives dozens of times for artist renderings of hominids never found, and claims of a 4.5 billion year old earth. Since the challenge that was presented requested research to analyze the dumpster fire that is evolutionary theory, I’d like to point out this article from that very website answering  the difficult question, “How do we know the earth is 4.6 billion years old.”

Rather than admitting plainly that they don’t… they have instead presented – under “SMART NEWS” no less – that the reason is radiometric dating. As an example, they mention Carbon dating, which renders a sample ‘carbon dead’ after 80,000 years, uranium-lead dating, a measurement fraught with assumptions and bad data, and zircon of all things, which the RATE team, a group of 8 Christian doctors who studied radiometric dating in an 8 year long study, is presently using to show helium diffusion rates prove even these supposedly old rocks have way to much helium  to be old. This is the same group that published their findings of Carbon 14 in diamonds, a hardened carbon that evolutionists claim are billions of years in the making, and should have lost their carbon 10,000 times over.

You may ask, “but don’t they use these dating methods to date the fossils?”

The answer is no. They use the made up geologic column to date the fossils, and the made up fossil dates to date the rocks they are found in. Classic circular reasoning, and a thorn in the sides of evolutionists who dare to challenge the dogma. Don’t believe me? Don’t take my word for it:

If you look up Paleontology  in World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15, 1978.) – p. 85 “Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”
And then look up Fossils – p. 364 “Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie.” These books were in every university in the country.

What about our biology text books?
“Often, the layers of rock can be dated by the types of fossils they contain…. Scientists have determined the relative times of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the location of their fossils within the sedimentary rock layers.” (Glenco, Biology Textbook, 1994, pp. 306-307.)

But surely the atheist evolutionists who tout the importance of radiometric dating use it to date the rocks, no? Here are two such atheists:
“I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” (Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100, 1983, p. 425.)
“The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53)

For more studies on dating issues, please see this post.

To the issue at hand. The article (not in its entirety because of length) is below in green. My comments from my creationist position will be in blue. Note, I was asked to “refute those findings”, which since it was her discovery, I won’t be doing, but will be addressing her conclusions. And also I was asked to speak on how her conclusions lie in contradiction to the creator God of the bible, which is the crux of the issue, and a wonderful question. Let’s get started:
After 68 million years in the ground,

This date was obtained based on the presupposed accuracy of the geologic column. We “know” how old T-rex’s are because of evolution, therefore if we find one, it is this old. Part of our Jurassic classification. Many times during my debate similar presuppositions were stated as definitive truth, such as “we know the rocks are billions of years old”. Two quotes from other atheists:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” –  Ronald R. West, “Paleontology and Uniformitarianism,” Compass, Vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216.

“The prime difficulty with the use of presumed ancestral-descendant sequences to express phylogeny is that biostratigraphic data are often used in conjunction with morphology in the initial evaluation of relationships, which leads to obvious circularity.” – B. Schaeffer, M.K. Hecht and N. Eldredge, “Phylogeny and Paleontology,” Ch. 2 in Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 6 (edited by Th. Dobzhansky, M.K. Hecht and W.C. Steere; New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972) p. 39.

 a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. 

This of course is also based on the presupposition that evolution is true. From the dates of the bible, Noah’s 600th year was approximately 4500 years ago, which is when all or close to all dinosaurs were buried and fossilized, along with explaining the earth’s plentiful biomass oil reserves from buried forests etc. This means anomalies such as soft tissue and carbon in diamonds doesn’t defeat, but supports the biblical timeline. We would expect to find all sorts of catastrophic evidence as well, which we do. Polystrate fossils are a notable one, one organism passing through different strata rock. Article

Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors.

“It has been well established that such biological structures and molecules should not last beyond a few tens of thousands of years, and could not possibly survive millions of years. So why are they there?” – Brian Thomas, M.S.  

“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

It is also interesting to note that though Schweitzer’s T-rex is the most notable soft tissue sample, many other samples have been found as well. One in 2013 was the soft tissue in a triceratops, which Schweitzer had nothing to do with – Armitage, M.H., and K. L. Anderson. Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus. Acta Histochemica. Published online before print, February 13, 2013.

In almost all cases, including Schweitzer, scientists scrambled to disprove soft tissue genuinely that of the speciment itself. “One popular pushback asserts that the soft tissues are not from the dinosaurs at all, but from bacteria that somehow infiltrated their bones and built biofilms in the same shapes as dinosaur tissues and cells.” – Brian Thomas, M.S.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

I never met Schweitzer, but have no reason to doubt her salvation. Not once during my debate did I suggest evolutionists couldn’t be Christians. The person I was debating, before declaring it supremely unimportant, debated staunchly for evolution’s obviousness, then declared he was not an evolutionist, and then that he was a Christian evolutionist. The two are mutually exclusive. You do not need one to be the other, nor do I teach that, but I will say it causes biblical inconsistencies. More on that later.

 

In 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”
Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.

They used to teach that it took millions of years to create a fossil. Then they taught at least 10,000 years (some sites still do). Now we have fossilized pallets, cowboy boots, a hat, a mason jar with a pickle in it, etc. Evolutionists have had to back off of this particular track, like many others due to observable science. Interestingly, scienceviews.com states, “Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind.” Water and mud. During my lectures, I show many examples of dinosaurs in death throes from asphyxiation due to being buried quickly in water and mud. Strangely, evolutionists postulate numerous un-provable ideas about how the dinosaurs became extinct (meteor, asteroid, global warming, flatulence (i wish that was a joke) global warming, etc) and yet we find them buried by water in mud all over the earth.

i.e. – World’s Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death, By Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor – “The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these Centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously. The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet.”

Drowned dinosaur eggs’ fossil remains reveal embryos grew fast, Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2013|By Amina Khan

Yellowstone National Park – Mammoth Site in South Dakota. Mammoths and other megafauna got trapped in a sinkhole and drown about 26,000 years ago

I just wish there was a book somewhere with eye-witness accounts of what happened so we could piece together how all these animals were buried simultaneously in water and mud all over the earth. Oh, wait?

In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world.

Just a point here. This guy saw something sticking out of a wall, and it was dated 68 million years. You know… cause its a T rex.Okay. Carry on…

 

Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives.

This is probably true, based again on presupposition that if evolution is true, and we have no reasonable theory for extinction, then macro-evolution theory must have turned dinosaurs in to feathered birds.

This means: heavy tail to feathered plumage; dense to hollow bones, cold to warm blooded in some cases, limbs to wings – these are serious physiological changes, and is absurd as it sounds. Fossils have been found that suggest dinosaurs with strange features, but creationists  view dinosaurs having woolly plumages and collagen fibers as –dinosaurs with woolly plumages and collagen fibers, nothing more.

This idea started with the find ‘Archaeopteryx’, a supposed transitional fossil, like many others jumped on publicly, and then backtracked privately and quietly, as it was simply an extinct type of flightless bird. This occurred with many supposed transitions, from Darwin to the present, and the fossil record remains strangely devoid of any transitions, just extinctions, and fully developed kinds, or baramin. They all appear suddenly, and no one teaches that if evolution were true, there should be billions of transitions found making taxonomy and classification impossible. 

Let’s take an aside, and hear just some quotes  (there are hundreds) from our evolutionary scientists about the fossil record:

“The majority of evolutionary movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival.”—*John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91 [English geneticist].

“We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology.”—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

“Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.

“. . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”—*Bounoure, Le Monde et la Vie (October 1983) [Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France].

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.”—*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (1882), pp. 181-182.

“The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.”—*Louis Trenchark More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.

To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus.

Primitive, again based on presupposition of evolutionary theory. For creationists, these are just kinds of birds.

In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.

As far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.

In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells….

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

You can say that again! In regards to the mammoth, we have here yet another soft tissue found to go with the many others. The scientific reaction to these tissues is “don’t understand decay.” Evolutionists are so ingrained in billions-of-years thinking, it would never occur to ask the more obvious question, perhaps these haven’t been decaying as long as we first thought. I am reminded of the Scientists in a lab that made coal in 6 hours. At a different time, in 1982 the British made oil in 10 minutes. Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University triumphantly stated, “We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do.” This is yes another stellar example of our presuppositions determining our interpretations. Another, more obvious conclusion, if one were not blinded by evolutionary theory would be to instead triumphantly announce, “It doesn’t take nearly as long as we thought for coal and oil to form!”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says.

A shame and nothing I’d condone. I like healthy debate, and prefer to present logical material for consideration. It usually isn’t until the ad hominem attacks, accusations, and lies come in that I start getting snippy. 

“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

The data is the data. What is observable is the geology of Hell Creek, the bones themselves, and where they were located, and the soft material inside. As a scientist, she is allowed to conclude as she wishes how to interpret this data, but it will be interpreted, no doubt, based on her world view, which in this case is evolution, and the fact that she “already knew” this site was 68 million years old. 

Another scientist who may believe in intelligent design is welcome to take these same facts, and look at them through the presupposition that 4500 years ago this animal was most likely a victim of a world wide catastrophic flood, and that part of it was preserved and didn’t fully fossilize. Forensic or historical sciences, such as archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, and forensics are historical sciences. In other words, results cannot be repeated in a lab. This animal cannot be buried again for all to see. Her emotions in this case are irrelevant. 

For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.

Breaks HER rules of science, and no doubt the rules of those who educated her. I am grateful she didn’t lose her faith like so many others, but this is a subjective opinion, not a scientific law. Conversely there exists the well known anthropic principle which states that the universe appears to be carefully designed for the well-being of mankind. This is quite recognized, and is in direct opposition to her approach and personal philosophy, since teleologically, we can observe a design and purpose, and therefore can conclude a designer.  

After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence.

Yes it is correct God asks for faith. No it is not correct that God doesn’t want you to use intellect, reason, and consider evidence. Or else He wouldn’t have gone to such great lengths to provide so many prophecies in the word (hundreds fulfilled, over three hundred by Christ alone). He would not have so meticulously recorded the history of the Jewish nation, the forming of their laws, kings, lineages, and travels. He would not have mentioned the cities founded and lived in that archeology has been using since to unravel the past accurately (for more on this please read Josh MacDowell’s New evidence that Demands a Verdict, and Cooper’s Authenticit of the Book of Genesis). Cities such as Nineveh, Ur, Jericho, all found. God used historians like Luke to record eye witness accounts and the history of the early church in Acts, precisely because evidence was so important. In Acts and John alone, over 140 eye witness details have been verified by scholars, because it WAS so important to be able to defend the scriptures. The miracles were actuallyseen, the prophecies  actually fulfilled, and the promise of His return hangs on these events occurring in real history, in real time. The bible implores us to study, and defend it over and over, not to believe blindly in it, and to them follow man’s theories:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give a defense to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

1 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord
Philippians 1:7 – in the defense and confirmation of the gospel
Philippians 1:17 – knowing I am appointed for the defense of the gospel

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

So we must ask, shall we apply it only to Christ’s life, or apply it to the bible as authoritative? More on that later when we discuss the second part of the question.

“If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

Romans 1: 20 states, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” 

Psalms 19:1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

We are without excuse if we do not see God in the wondrous creation He has made for us. A huge point of contention, because simply put, evolutionists must conclude that all this came about by accident. Matter created itself, slowly gave rise to order, to chemicals, to suns and systems, and eventually abiogenesis, life from non-life, another scientific impossibility. From there through millions of years of death, and change for survival, man developed from animals. We must then conclude that at some arbitrary point, after 4 billion years of using death to create mankind, a mere highly evolved animal, a God who started it all 14 billion years ago decided to impart souls, make up a mythology with specific years, and including a flood, and then “really began telling a redemption story” some time around Abraham?

It is clear that Schwietzer is “driven crazy” by people who disagree with her world view, and with her philosophy. But in her defense, they are not disagreeing with the forensic science she conducted. Not agreeing with creationists and thinking it’s kind of cool to not know God has no bearing whatsoever on what was found. And the simple fact remains, soft tissue cannot last 65 million years before breaking down. 

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown.

In my opinion, when they let go of the presupposition of evolution, much of what they observe in the field will fall in to place, like it already has with Dr. Snelling at the Grand Canyon, Dr. Sanford the geneticist who studied the genetic entropy of the human genome, and fifty others I could name (see in six days: why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation). But let’s hear from more of our evolutionist friends about it:

“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.”—*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

Paleontologist Alan Cheetham, a gradualist evolutionist, summed up decades of his own research: “I came reluctantly to the conclusion that I wasn’t finding evidence for gradualism.” Reported by R.A. Kerr in “Did Darwin Get It All Right?” Science 276:1421, 10 March 1995.

“The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.”—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

“Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely.”—*B. Storehouse, “Introduction,” in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.

“To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”—*H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,”

“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.”—*Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

I hope this is the case for all who discount the veracity of scripture.

 

The article can be read in full at the top of this page.

The second part of our question:  “Then tell me how that data or her data in any way lies in contradiction to the creation of the universe by an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent Creator.”

Again, her data, the actual hard data does not lie in contradiction to anyone. They are simply hard facts. Bones. Certain testable content, location, etc. Evolutionists are adept however at blurring the lines between hard facts, and interpreted data, as well as always insisting they have a monopoly on the sciences. This is simply in gross error. I can’t count the times it has been suggested that Christians need to stop being anti-science, or that we hate or ignore science because of our bibles.

This same accusation was levied at me by this debater as well, and several times at that. But he also did say one thing I agreed with, and that is that the bible is not a science book. Of course it isn’t! Creationists do not claim it to be so, nor do they claim it to be a book on taxonomy or dinosaurs. The bible contains what it contains, and from it, we must derive conclusions based on what God told us. But in it creationists would expect, unlike Schweitzer, to find a Creator God who does speak sense when referring to the natural world, which is precisely what we find. i.e. the hydrological cycle, fountains of the deep, springs under water, pathways of the sea, curve of the earth, hanging it on nothing, etc. In all instances God’s word is correct regarding natural occurrences, and only varies during supernatural events, such as creation. This stands in contrast to all ancient mythology origin stories, and is logically what we’d expect from a God who is outside of space, time and matter.

Through studies, we can learn the culprits that brought us the evolutionary theory, and what their intent was. Lyell wanted to save the sciences from Moses, and from Buffon, to Lamarck, to Darwin, the enlightenment brought us the unsubstantiated theories about the decent of man that we teach today.

The result of these teachings? Rampant racism.

The Decent of Man – 1871 , Darwin – “At some future period… the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

Then, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.” Huxley.

Then – “At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. ” Heckel, pre WWII, and major influence on Germany and Hitler.

These ideas permeated government, politics, and societies such as Japan, China, Russia, and Nazi Germany, and in the 20th century alone caused over 150 million deaths. This, the same theory that an evolutionist Christian may call harmless, and declare  a meaningless fight to teach and disciple people about the truth of our origins. From a creationist perspective, our origins are the same, a family of 8, 4500 years ago, a fact which is corroborated by population growth analysis, genetics, anthropology, and a study of flood legends the world over with similar details (over 300 flood legends exist today).

And what does the bible say about the tribes of the earth? Revelations 7:9-10:   After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

It states we will be standing shoulder to shoulder together.

Furthermore, these two opposing views cannot be married so easily, for as you will see, they are diametrically opposed in almost every way:

Billions of years – Life from non-life (violates law of causality)
All animals descended from common ancestor from 3.5 billion years ago
Animals change in to completely different animals, modifications are virtually unlimited, and additional information is always being added (never observed)
Fossils were laid down over time, slowly over millions of years
Death came before sin, before man
Sun before light
Sun before Earth
Sun before Plants
Creation took billions of years
Dinosaurs came before birds
Land came before oceans
Man just a slowly evolving animal
Man created God

Special 7 day creation – Life comes from life
Animals were created as distinct kinds
Changes within a kind of animal is due to design allowing changes, microevolution. Always due to a loss or rearranging of existing genetic material
Fossils were formed quickly due to a catastrophic flood all over the whole earth
Death Came after sin, and after the first Man
Light before sun
Earth before Sun
Plants before Sun
Creation took six days
Birds came before dinosaurs.
Oceans came before land
Mankind was highly intelligent from the beginning
God created Man

This is a lot of opposites!

And we would be wise to consider Christ’s words in Matthew: “But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.”

Question?

If there is 3,845,000,000 years between mankind and the beginning, was Christ lying?

At what point did God think animals were “human enough” to impart souls to them?

When was the fall?

Did death bring man into the world, or man bring death into the world?

And if there is a curse that Christ came to undo, was it here for the full 4 billion years before man arrived and sinned?

Romans 5 : 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…
17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Make no mistake, in the victory of Christ, there will be a curse that is lifted: Colossians 1:20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross
Revelations 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away
Revelations 22:3 And there shall be no more curse

But if the fossil record is full of death, thorns, cancer, disease, arthritis, abscesses, tumors, rickets, syphilis all before man, and the fall in fossil record; if billions of years of chance and extinction occurred to arrive at us, does this not fully undermine the teaching on the full redemptive work of Christ?

There is much much more to this study, how day is literally defined in the bible as morning and evening, and how day “yom”  is used over 2300 times, and how we can easily conclude its meaning based on context. The particulars of the ark. Speciation vs baramins. How both Lamarkism and Neo-Darwinism fail on every level. And so much more. But perhaps the best way to end would be a warning from the bible itself. Read carefully this passage:

2 Peter 3 – Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.

It is as if the bible literally predicted uniformitarian world view in the Last Days. Things continue as they were. This is the battle cry of evolution. Given enough time, anything can happen. But the logical conclusion of many a thinking person who has been indoctrinated by evolution is that if we evolved, than the bible is wrong, man made religion up along the way, and when you die you die. There was no fall, there is no curse, it is as it was from the beginning. This belief will determine behavior, as it has with the 20th century, and as it is doing with millennials in the 21st. They leave the church in droves, because the bible has been robbed of its authority.

 

 

 

 

Shall We Travel to Other Worlds?

I have recently been setting up and teaching apologetic classes for my church, and as I grow my curriculum, I am getting more and more excited about the future of my ministry, in whatever form or capacity God may use it. But after gearing up for an amazing class for the high school kids this past Wednesday, I was derailed by threats of weather, which shut down the whole town, and sent the locals running for milk and bread.

The post script to this “storm of the year” was that it rained a little, but I digress.

Since I have been so amped up to rattle off some amazing facts, and have as of yet been unable to, I thought I would share a bit about space travel. The reason? TRAPPIST-1 of course. The observation of some planets passing in front of a star approximately 39.5 light years away. This news, although interesting in the sense that we can discover more about space and our galaxy, is being used as a catalyst to create space-exploration fever. TRAPPIST-1 has its own website now, and chatter about the planets have been mentioned far and wide, picked up by NASA, space.com, and a myriad of other such science based programs. The issue is, with each report comes the suggestion, sometimes implied, sometimes outright affirmed, that we are a step closer to exploring life on other planets, discovering life in the universe, and even traveling to them for a meet and greet in the near future.

This is an  intellectually dishonest position, and I am of the belief that these scientists know it. What they have observed is simply that planets orbit a dim sun 232,210,000,000,000 miles away. Now, of the seven observed, they push the insinuation repeatedly that 3 of these 7 are within the “habitable zone”. This of course implies that life like ours could potentially live on all three of these planets, which will be the idea perpetuated heavily and with as much vigor as possible. Why? The all-mighty dollar. This will insure attention, clicks, interest, comments from world leaders, write ups in magazines, PBS specials, and most importantly, an influx of money promised to be earmarked for further discoveries of such ‘magnitude’.

Why this assumption that life must be out there waiting for us to discover it? Evolution! The pre-supposition is firmly set within the minds of academia, and through this lens is how they observe the universe. It stands to reason that if we evolved here, then judging by the size of the universe, many other such life forms in various states of evolution must have done the same all over. We just need to locate where!

Of course if they believed we were a special creation, and that God stretched out the heavens (said over 17 times in the old Testament) to speak of His glory, we would not expect evolution, a most unscientific theory anyway, to have done much with any of the stars we see in the night sky.

SETI – the search for extraterrestrial intelligence –  believes as Sagan, Tyson, and Dawkins do, that we are not special, and so they have spent hundreds of millions since 1960 in order to discover absolutely nothing.

This is a huge topic, but 2 things we must consider:

  1. Carl Sagan said that only 2 factors were needed to sustain life, (ironically the same two factors that have been highlighted in all these articles). A sun like ours, and a planet in the habitable zone of said sun. This was stated by him in 1966, but since then we have learned of many more requirements for life to exist, or Goldilocks factors. Water, thickness of crust, large gas planets, size of sun, moon, electromagnetic core, and on and on. If we take just 20 of these factors, and give each a 1 in 10 chance of occurring at some particular star, say Trappist, the chances would be 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000  that it could happen. Based on the number of stars we think the universe has, this is a one star for every billion out there. Here’s the kicker. There are now over 200 factors identified! Hugh Ross, astrophysicist has named 200+ Goldilocks factors, and that number brings our chances up to 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! This cannot happen, and is beyond nature’s ability to create by chance. Furthermore, this ignores the life-from-non-life problem that evolution already has.
  2. If we consider actually traveling to find these places, we must take in to account that the nearest star is 25,671,957,738,631 mi away, Alpha Centari. Nearest galaxy, about 2.5 million light years. And as of now, we cannot get even close to traveling at light speed. Mass increases as speed increases, therefore as we get a shuttle to approach the speed of light, lets say 90% of the speed, it would take the energy of 73 million atomic bombs to move the mass. The same amount to slow it down. And one touch from a pea sized piece of debris would impact said vehicle like two atomic bombs, according to Gary Bates of CMI. This is an unrealistic goal.

There is much more on this topic, and I wrote this article, UFO’s and God some time ago for you to check out. The bottom line is, yes science and discoveries are wonderful, but space exploration, like the “discoveries” from anthropology, are often used for money, grants and prestige, not for truth.

If Jesus Doesn’t Know the Hour, Is He God?

Question posed to me by students studying apologetics:

“This is a question a lot of Muslims ask because they don’t believe in the Trinitarian attribute of our God and like to use Matthew 24:36 to “prove” that the Son and the Father are not one, but completely separate. So the question is, after reading the verse, how can Jesus the son be God the Father if God is omniscient and all knowing but Jesus does not know the hour and God knows the hour?”

This is how I answered:

The answer is based in what scholars have dubbed “the hypostatic union”, whereby Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. He walked and talked as a man, mourned as a man, suffered as a man, yet as God He was prayed to, worshiped, etc. We could certainly do a trinity, or deity of Christ study if need be, using John 1:1 (theos en ho logos), or in John 8 (before Abraham was I am) or Isaiah 7 (Emmanuel meaning God with us). In Micah He is called the everlasting father, etc.

But the emptying of himself on earth is described in Phil 2 “Who, being in very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death.”

Another example is in Hebrews 2 it states that “He was made for a little while lower than the angels.” We can infer from all this that Christ, during His earthly ministry, healed and did miracles by the father’s power, or the power of the Holy Spirit rather than His own. Therefore, having to live a perfect life as a man, He did this so perfectly or “fairly” may be a better term, that He did not know the day nor the hour.

If you are looking for a less intense, down and dirty answer, we’d simply refer to Revelations, which is a go-to place to witness to Mormons as well as those who practice Islam, since the deity of Christ is often attacked.

Ask, who is this that says in Rev 1:11 , “I am the alpha and omega, the first and last.” The Mormon, or Muslim will say that refers to God (or Allah they may say). Then ask, what about here in Rev 21:6, “I am the Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end.” Who is that? They will say, God.
Then we refer to rev 1:17-18. “I am the first and the last, He that liveth, and was dead, and behold I am alive forever more.” Who is this? They will say, that is God, to which you reply, “When did God die?”

Also, on a side note, The Quran of Islam states that God departed the law and inspiration to the bible’s profits, that he sent down the law of Moses, and the Gospel of Jesus, (Sura 2:87; 3:3; 4:163; and 5:46),  and that the word of God cannot be altered (6:34, 6:115). However, most Muslims will state that the bible has been corrupted and that the Quran must be trusted over the Christian bible. The real question is how can the Muslim trust the Quran, if in its very text it states to trust the gospels, and Allah’s words cannot be changed. Another way to state this is in a simple proof which the text bears out:

1 – If the Bible is true than the Quran is false
2 – If the Bible is false, than the Quran is false
3 – Therefore, the Quran is false

Please feel free to comment, and let me know if you have any additional thoughts in regards to this question.

If you are interested in my Christian Fiction, The Last Saint, please check it out here or on Amazon.